Second Amendment at the U.S. Supreme Court Now!!

[Michigander]

The USSC is not the final arbitor of the Constitution?

Hmmm.


IwonderifWildAlaskawillchimeinonthisone

 

[Don Hamrick]

DIRECTED TO GRAYSTSAR:

No. I don't have a thorough education in any specialized or general law. I am a U.S. Merchant Seaman who has applied a practical sense to constitutional law in terms of the Common Defense because I am a merchant seaman who's job it is to participate in the National Defense of this nation in time of war.

My interest is in "We the People's" role in Common Defense, as in the Posse Comitatus, the Militia, the State Defense Force, whenever the U.S. Government fails or refuse to defence this nation from invasion: i.e., the Mexican border and the volunteer citizenry now involved in the Minuteman Project.

No. I do not have any of the trappings and frivolity of an attorney.

I am a pro se.

 

[Graystar]

...who has applied a practical sense to constitutional law...

See what I mean? You can't just go and apply whatever principles you want to law and expect the courts to abide by it.

 

[LawDog]

Enough.

Don Hamrick is now a Member here. As such, he will be treated with the same courtesy and consideration as any other Member.

You may not like what he has done, but you will express yourself with civility.

I don't give a tinker's spit which cutesy way you find to call other Members pussies, you do it again, and you'll be wishing Mr. Hamrick "Good Luck" from another Forum, do I make myself clear?

This, and other threads on the subject, are staying open because they are vitally important to us and the Second Amendment.

However, if they turn into insult matches, knee-biting competitions, or a study in the various ways of creatively insulting each other, they're going away and you can find find out what happens on CNN.

I trust that I am crystal clear on this subject.

LawDog

 

[Carlos]

Ya, I'd say that's pretty close.

Don, welcome to TheHighRoad and good luck in your endeavor.

Let's not give LawDog any excuses folks!!!!

 

[Don Hamrick]

DIRECTED TO LAWDOG:

Do you not have the capability to deleting the offending message without having to delete the entire thread?

I have noticed that my one messages was moved as a separate thread to its new position as a subordinate message in another thread which tells me you do have the capability to delete single messages in a thread.

Heavy handed tactics like yours disparage our First Amendment rights and is typical of of tyrants in government. I noticed you didn't come out in my defense when criticism was heaped up on me!

The offending quote you cite brings to my mind a cat rubbing its back on a person's two legs. Now if the species described a dog, then yes, it would tend to cross the line of descency in the proper exercise of First Amendment rights for a discussion board.

I personally do not see a need for the threat of censorship just from your cited quote.

This is my first occassion to post on this board. And already I see the heavy hand of censorship. Is this common here?

 

[Don Hamrick]

DIRECTED TO GRAYSTAR:

"See what I mean? You can't just go and apply whatever principles you want to law and expect the courts to abide by it."

No. I do not see what you mean. The only principles I apply in court are those that I interpret from my understanding of the Constitution.

 

[Graystar]

Heavy handed tactics like yours disparage our First Amendment rights and is typical of of tyrants in government.

OY

This just goes to show how much you need a lawyer. You seem to lack even a basic understanding of rights.

Your right to free speech does NOT create an obligation upon anyone to give you a forum for your speech. The Mods can do whatever they want and they would be well within THEIR right to control their property (that being this board.)

 

[Graystar]

No. I do not see what you mean.

I know. That's what I mean.

The only principles I apply in court are those that I interpret from my understanding of the Constitution.

I know. And to a court of law those interpretations are meaningless without accepted legal doctrine to back them up.

 

[Michigander]

Don, I believe you may have misinterpretted the editting by the mod(s).

The mods here at THR do a good job of consolidating posts dealing with the same topics.

Normally it is multiple people who post on the same topic and then they are merged.

In this case, you created multiple posts on the same topic. That is a bit unusual here.

I can assure you that the mods here at THR are fair and not heavy handed.

 

[Norton]

edited to avoid thread drift

 

[Graystar]

I may be just a tuba player.....but isn't it the principle of the 1st amendment that the *government* may not restrict free speech?

That's generally how it comes up in court, but in truth no person can violate any of your rights either. However, it is very difficult for a person to violate another person's freedom of speech without also committing some other, more substantial violation of a more immediate concern, like imprisonment or slavery.

Too late

 

[Don Hamrick]

EXPLANATION FOR MY CRITICISM OF LAWDOG

I was posting sections of my Petition for Writ of Certiorari as 3 separate threads for brevity.

The 4 thread about the NRA was intended to be a separate thread to spur discussion on the NRA supposed dedication to the Second Amendment, to which in my opinion deserved to remain as a separate thread. But I do not object to its move because the objection would be over a trivial matter.

I am as fair minded as the next person.

But, I have been 3 years fighting judges and judges who are ignoring my case, Assistant U.S. Attorney who file biolerplate motions to dismiss with no serious regard to the merits of my case.

The U.S. Department of Justice was supposed to have filed their response today in answer to my allegation against President Bush of treason, high crimes and/or misdemeanors over the invasion of illegal aliens at the Mexican border. The Assistant U.S. Attorney did not email the PDF version of his response today. I will have to wait until tomorrow to see if the Court filed it on the Docket Report online.

At this stage of litigation, I take sharp notice to any infringements upon our Bill of Righs from any sector of our society, public or private.

I agrtee with LawDog on civility, but he came awfully close to the tyranny of censorship when he implied that he would remove the entire thread. He ought to exercise some restraint himself.

Forgive my critique. I am litigiously battle-weary.

 

[insidious_calm]

I'm amazed....

at the lack of courage that most on here are displaying regarding this issue. Is there EVER a good time to be standing before nine potentially(read: likely) hostile people tryng to make an argument that will prevent likely bad things from happening? At the very least this case does not come on the heels of a drug or other criminal case. Like it or not this man has courage. Something SUSPICIOUSLY DISCOURAGED by many on here.

Whether it's prudent or not, he's damned well got the right to stand up for his rights in court, and even argue his case himself. That's why it's called a "right", Furious.

+1 to that

What we need are a few more like this. Good luck and godspeed Mr. Hamrick.

I.C.

 

[Graystar]

I'm amazed.... at the lack of courage

That has nothing to do with it. Any case, no matter what the controversy, has to be properly presented and must be based on sound legal doctrine if it is to be accepted by the Court. Otherwise it's just another nut-job wasting the Court's time with frivolous nonsense. And the last thing we want is to have such cases associated with attempts to defend our gun rights.

 

[Don Hamrick]

DIRECTED TO INSIDIOUS CALM:

I WON’T BACK DOWN
by Tom Petty

Well I won’t back down, no I won’t back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won’t back down

Gonna stand my ground, won’t be turned around
And I’ll keep this world from draggin’ me down
Gonna stand my ground and I won’t back down

Hey baby, there ain’t no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won’t back down.

Well I know what’s right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin’ me around
But I’ll stand my ground and I won’t back down

Hey baby there ain’t no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won’t back down
No, I won’t back down

 

[MaterDei]

I hope his case is denied.

I do not want the current court anywhere near a 2nd amendment case. As long as they are in the business of finding rights that are not written and consulting foreign law to interpret our constitution, they need to be kept far, far away from the 2nd amendment.

Someone had better throw a blanket over these people or we will regret their actions in the future.

+1

With that said; welcome to The High Road. I hope your cert, whatever the heck that is, is accepted and you get some good help and win.

Off topic, I'm glad that now that the RT is gone that we no longer have offensive posts!

 

[Don Hamrick]

DIRECTED TO GRAYSTAR:

I am beginning to perceive Graystar is an agent provocatuer for discontent. I have advised you, Graystar that my case has legal standing, it has a legal controversy, and a legal doctrine to argue not soley based on the individual right to keep and bear arms but the right to not only provide for the Common Defence through taxes, but to participate in the Common Defence as stipulated in the Preamble to the Constitution and in several clauses throughout the Constitution.

See Message No.11
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=132168

You are beginning to display yourself as the idefiant skeptic.

 

[EghtySx]

Ya'll can say what you want about his chances in court but you gotta admire a guy who absolutely will not compromise his principals (which I agree with) one bit no matter the odds he faces.

Stay with it Mr. Hamrick. Everyone in your camp who is seemingly against your tactics will be your biggest fans if you win. If you don't, you will have the satisfaction of having fought as hard as you could without compromise. Few people have the intestinal fortitude to do that anymore.

 

[Don Hamrick]

DIRECTED TO EGHTYSIX

As God is my witness, I thank you. It is a rare event that I get a compliment.

Most I ever get is trash heaped up on me.

 

[Smoke]

You are within your 1A rights to walk around with a Nazi emblem on your arm.
When you pin that emblem to my wall, I have the right to take it down (and charge you with vandalism, but I digress...)

THR is is Oleg's wall. He can do with it as he pleases. No violation of 1A rights.

Good luck with your fight.

Smoke

 

[Fletchette]

To Don Hamrick

After reading through all these posts I am rather sanguine. Earlier, I said that it "was stupid" to go before the Supreme Court without lawyers; for that I apologize. Upon retrospect, I believe that I have slowly grown accustomed to the never-ending elitist hierarchy our nation has become. A man (or woman) should be able to make his or her case directly to the Supreme Court in a Free Nation.

Of course, you have the right to speak your mind here - welcome to the High Road!

As for tactics/timing/timidity...I suppose we all like to believe that there will be a "magic time" to bring this to the Supreme Court, a time when we'll win and live happily ever after. In reality however, some events come to you whether you like it or not. It is our reponsibility to be prepared.

So, I think we should start talking on how we can help Mr. Hamrick if the Supreme Court actually does decide to hear it.

 

[Don Hamrick]

DIRECTED TO SMOKE:

Suppose your understanding for First Amendment law is relatively correct. Okay. Suppose he does have a right to yank any and all threads without reason. And it becomes a routine practice to delete any number of threads everyday in a random order or for threads that offends his sensibilities.

He will lose membership and viewership as time progress because people will not put up with such censorship.

We do not have a right "NOT TO BE OFFENDED." Freedom is measured in the ability to freely express our opinions. But I suppose that free speech exists to the extent of common decency and civility. A salty sailor with a robust proclivity for vulgarities as to be suspected of being a victim of Torette Syndrome would not have a case for censorship to litigate.

As with everything, moderation preserves us all.

 

[Don Hamrick]

DIRECTED TO FLETCHETTE:

For 3 years I have been trying to get the NRA to arrive at your conclusion.

You, being the first to reach your conclusion, the conclusion of have for so long been trying to get others to reach is a milestone! I have planted the first seed of understanding. Perhaps I will eventually be successful in my "Second Amendment revolution." (bringing back the old way: open carry nationwide for the common defense).

 

[The Rabbi]

I seem to have missed something.

From the first post it seems Mr. Hamrick "sued" the government in district court alleging a tort allegation of some sort or other. The suit was dismissed, i.e. it never went to trial. He appealed that dismissal and now is taking it to the Supreme Court. I did not see any mention of a court of appeals case.
That is an absolute farce. It is a waste of taxpayer money.
In most actual cases, the defendant/plaintiff has actually gone through a court case. The court has found against the plaintiff/defendant. The plaintiff/defendant appeals on grounds of a mistake in law (there can be no mistake of fact generally in an appeal).
None of this has happened here. Mr. Hamrick has basically been told he is wasting everyone's time with a meritless case. He persists and continues to waste everyone's time, including those on THR. His responses are becoming increasingly aggressive and without basis.
There is no case here. There is no discussion.